Subscribe to this blog

Get Email Updates!

Search This Blog

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." -Cicero

The UN Plan for Food and Land

"At the World
Food Programme we have recognized what a valuable tool food aid can be in
changing behaviour. In so many poorer countries food is money, food is power.
... Yes, it's bribery. We don't apologize for that."3Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the
World Food Program.

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model
in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more
criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."1 Carl
Amery, German Greens

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to
earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."2Prince Philip
of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund

"Where the Buffalo
Roam: Reclaiming the Great Plains." This title for the cover article in a TWA
magazine intrigued me. Flying east across the Great Plains toward Minneapolis,
I scanned the quilt-like farmland below and wondered which part might be reclaimed
for the bison.The article began with a full sized picture of
an old red barn in a golden field. "An abandoned farm in Mayville, North Dakota,"
explained the caption, "signifies the decline in self-sustaining agriculture
on the Great Plains." Under a photo of grazing buffaloes was written, "Buffalo
are integral to the region's health." Abandoned farms in Mayville? No health
without bison?Since my husband grew up in Mayville, I knew
well that no one abandons farms in this fertile valley. But contrary facts matter
little to political activists with a green agenda. These deceptive photos help
"prove" the existence of a crisis. They provide the persuasive "information"
needed to "raise consciousness", produce consensus, validate centralized land
management, and speed compliance with unthinkable controls. I read on:

"Human design, not natural selection, will
be responsible for the great buffalo herds of the 21st century. They are
part of a plan to reconstruct nature already well along in the initial stages
of implementation."

The grander scheme, led by President Clinton's
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) together with the United Nations Commission
on Sustainable Development, means restoring wolves, owls, snails, bugs and bacteria
to an idealized version of their former state. Whole ecosystems, not just parts,
must be reconstructed-often at the expense of private landowners.With the United Nations' World Food Summit (WFS)
on my mind, I pondered an obvious paradox: How would UN visionaries and their
environmental partners reconcile (1) their desire to return fertile farmland
back to buffalo grazing land with (2) their demand for a global welfare systems
promising "food security" for all?Reconstructing NatureThe vision of buffalo herds roaming free throughout
the plains was birthed by academics Deborah and Frank Popper in distant New
Jersey. They interpreted statistics showing reduced population in many rural
communities to mean that farming the Plains had been an "ill-conceived" notion
from the beginning. "The best use for the Great Plains", argued the Poppers,
was to ban farming altogether, create a "Buffalo Commons", and restore the land
to its original condition. Other land-use planners from distant states agreed.
But farmers were afraid ."We're tremendously concerned about losing our
property rights," said Mike Schmidt, a South Dakota rancher. "Right now, two
things are particularly scary for us-endangered species and wetlands Essentially,
they can determine how you use your land."Schmidt has reason to fear. The "Buffalo Commons"
envisioned by idealistic planners is huge enough to touch everyone. "To really
do any good, we have to plan over large geographies," says Bruce Stein, the
director of external affairs for conservation science at the Nature Conservancy,
a powerful advocacy group for ecosystem planning. "A natural system needs room
to function."A "healthy Great Plains would encompass every
square meter of the Plains, from the prairie provinces of Canada through Oklahoma
and Texas," added Glen Martin who wrote the TWA article. It would include Colorado,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as well as the "adjacent ecosystems,
such as the boreal forests of northern Michigan and Minnesota and aspen groves
of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Some Great Plains species need more than
one habitat to thrive."So do some humans, but that matters little.Aware of opposition,
restoration scholars are willing to start small: by connecting big chunks of
biodiverse ecosystems with corridors to aid animal migrations. This agenda matches
that of The Wildlands Project conceived by convicted "eco-warrior" Dave
Foreman who co-founded the militant eco-group Earth First and serves on the
board of the Sierra Club."Embraced by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), The Nature Conservancy, UNPED (United
Nations Environment Programme), UNESCO, and the Sierra Club," says Henry Lamb,
publisher of éco-logic, "the Wildlands Project wants to return 'at least 50
percent' of the land area in America to 'core wilderness areas' where human
activity is barred."4These "core wilderness areas", Lamb explains,
would "be connected by corridors" and "surrounded by buffer zones" in which
there may be managed human activity providing that biodiversity protection is
the first priority."5Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) shares Henry
Lamb's concern. In June 1996, he introduced "The American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act." It would have protected private property owners and required Congressional
approval of international land designations in the US-something most Americans
would have taken for granted. But it failed to pass-in spite of his persuasive
words to the House of Representatives:

More and more of our nation's land has
become subject to international land-use restrictions... A total of 67
sites in the United States have been designated as UN Biosphere Reserves
orWorld Heritage Sites. These programs
are run by UNESCO-an arm of the UN...
The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law
or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees...
should not do things that the law does not authorize....the power to make all rules and regulations
governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in the Congress...
Yet the international land designations under these programs have been created
with virtually no congressional oversight.6

Even so, the President's Council on Sustainable
Development, like the other national CSDs around the world, continues to pursue
its intrusive plan for land management based on UN guidelines. It suggests using
government regulations, tax incentives and disincentives, the media, and persuasive
"scientific" information to manage lands, people, communities, consumption,
transportation, and knowledge.Its authors include Bruce Babbitt (Secretary
of the Interior), Jay Hair (former National Wildlife Federation president who
formed a partnership with John Denver's New Age-globalist organization Windstar),
Madeline Kunin (Deputy Secretary, Department of Education), and Timothy Wirth
(Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs).Its "principal liasons" include the EPA, The
Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club-the same organizations that support
the Wildlands Project. In light of this liason, ponder the comment by Wildlands
Project Director Reed Noss: "The collective needs of non-human species must
take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."7Even when people are starving?Managing Food"World leaders will assemble in Rome from 13
to 17 November, 1996, making a public commitment to action to eliminate hunger,"
stated the official "Brochure" available on the World Food Summit's world wide
web page. "As preparations for the Summit proceed, world grain stocks have dwindled
to dangerously low levels... a reminder of the fragility of food supplies in
a world that must produce more each year to feed a rapidly increasing population.
An estimated 800 million people still are chronically undernourished. The agreements
reached at the Summit will place food at the top of the global agenda alongside
peace and stability."The "agreements" are a two-part contract: the
World Food Summit (WFS) Document and the Plan of Action. Signed by the participating
nations, this contract holds nations accountable for fulfilling their assigned
part of the UN agenda. Under the noble banner of "civic government", it links
local and international NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) directly to UN
agencies, bypassing Congress and state legislatures that cling to old notions
of sovereignty.The real issue is control. Who will manage and
monitor the global production and distribution of food? How will they manage
information, motivate the masses, and establish consensus and solidarity?Just as US educators promise "local control"
while implementing the global education plan, so the WFS acknowledged national
sovereignty, but mandated compliance. Each nation that signed the contract agreed
to a monstrous system of old and new UN resolutions starting with Commitment
One: "We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment
designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for
durable peace ."What does that mean? The Marxist economics and
social "equality" touted by the UN?The jubilant reception of Fidel Castro and his
hard-line Communist message gives a clue to the world's hostility toward Western
capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder the WFS contract tells nations to
"reallocate resources" as "required to ensure food for all" (#59,e) -not through
foreign aid, but through total worldwide social and economic transformation.During a televised "World Food Summit Preview"8
featuring U.S. Under-Secretary of State Timothy Wirth and Secretary of Agriculture
Dan Glickman, a reporter asked if the US might be "negotiating away some rights"
and "accepting restraints on what we can plant, what fertilizers we can use,
what chemicals we can use on the land."Obviously irritated by the question, Glickman,
who heads the US delegation to the WFS, answered, "We were never headed in that
direction. We would never have accepted that!" Yet, minutes later, he mentioned
his plan to restrict the use "of pesticides, herbicides and insecticide."The WFS contract doesn't detail the specific
"preventative measures". Apparently, the more sensitive parts of the agenda
were discussed in settings less open to critical eyes. As a UN news release
suggested, the gathering of international leaders "might yield more than the
summit itself":Canadian Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale told
reporters that he hoped to have unofficial talks. 'Part of what will happen
in Rome,' he said, 'apart from the official agenda, is a great deal of corridor
conversations, which on occasion can be more valuable than the official proceedings.'9

Monitoring everything

Far more sobering than the stated goals and steps
is the establishment of a legal framework for global governance. Most official
contracts signed by nations at former UN Conferences reach beyond stated topics
such as saving the earth, protecting the children, eradicating poverty, empowering
women, and feeding the poor. Those issues fit into a larger context which involves
a vast "systemic" plan for global transformation -- a reality which begs the
question: Could each current issue simply be the "crisis" needed to persuade
the masses to accept totalitarian controls?For example, the WFS contract calls for "protecting
the interests and needs of the child consistent with the World Summit for Children
[and] the Convention on the Rights of the Child." (#17) Are children's rights
being used as a smokescreen that justifies government plans to develop "human
resources" without hindrance from parents with contrary beliefs and values?In a 1993 speech at the International Development
Conference, James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation's Children's
Fund (UNICEF), said-

Children and women can be our Trojan Horse
for attacking the citadel of poverty, for undergirding democracy, dramatically
slowing population growth and for accelerating economic development.10

The WFS contract asked governments, "in partnership
with all actors of civil society" to "establish legal and other mechanisms,
as appropriate, that advance land reform." (#15, b) Could this mean the rights
of the poor, especially of women, to "access to land" might be emphasized over
and above the property rights of present land owners? The UN contract signed
at Women's Conference in Beijing indicated such a "right", and the WFS affirmed
that suggestion: "Support and implement commitments made at the Fourth World
Conference on Women." (#16,a)Nations that signed the WFS contract agreed to
Commitment 7: "implement, monitor, and follow-up this Plan of Action at all
levels in cooperation with the international community." President Clinton
took a big step toward fulfilling his part through
Executive Order 13011. Creating a massive information
technology management system linked to international systems, it helps federal
agencies -- FBI, CIA, FEMA, EPA and Departments of State, Education, Labor,
Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior, etc. -- exchange and monitor
information around the world.According to UN guidelines, all people and
all places would be monitored -- schools, homes, workplaces.... All who
violate the new standards for tolerance, gender equity, or sustainable living
at home or at work would be tracked through the vast UN-controlled data system.Globalist leaders know that only a new set of
beliefs and values will prepare the Western world to accept what Al Gore calls
"sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society."11
The 3 E's of Sustainable Development (Environment, Economy, and Equity) must
become the world's central organizing principle. Every nation must submit to
a "system-wide coordination within the framework of the coordinated follow-up
to UN conferences" Resident UN coordinators would guide and monitor "the allocation
and use of financial and human resources" (#59,h,e), while nations with representative
government would yield their sovereignty to a monstrous multilevel global bureaucracy
controlled by socialist UN rulers.All this would be hard for Americans to swallow
unless persuasive and strategic information can change their minds. So the UN
calls for "system-wide advocacy" to guide its agenda through the "difficult
times of economic transition, budget austerity and structural adjustment" ahead.
(#59,m,n)

"Improve the dissemination and utilization
of information and data needed to guide and monitor progress" states
the contract. (#59,c) The validity of new data matters less than its power
to stir feelings and motivate the masses to accept the new socialist criteria
for economic equality.12 As Stanford University
environmentalist Stephen Schneider said, 'we need to get some broad based
support. We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have...."1

To rally public support, advocacy must outweigh
integrity. Last April a public health agency told its employees to dispose of
any data that contradicted politically correct policies and conclusions. A memo
to employees of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 13
told workers to discard all documents "which contain other policy proposals
not adopted or reflected" in its final policy decisions. "Only those communications
which are reflected or embodied in the final decision or document shall be kept
on file."What counts is the appearance of consensus
-- the key to managing people through "civic government." To ensure conformity
to UN policies at every level of society, the "WFS Plan of Action builds on
consensus reached." (#10) This strategy, which uses planned dialogues and
politically correct data to create a collective mindset, is already being
used in American schools, workplaces, communities, and government agencies.
It is promoted through UN literature, the US Department of Education's Community
Action Toolkit, and Sustainable America, the 1996 report by the President's
Council on Sustainable Development. In fact, the worldwide "human resource"
management system envisioned by socialist leaders decades ago is almost in place.Managing people."Raise the global profile of food security issues
through system-wide advocacy," states the WFS contract. (#58.12) It uses words
such as advocacy, civil society, participatory, and empowering to indicate the
strategic blend of propaganda and dialogue used around the world to win grass-roots
public support for the global agenda.At each level of society, facilitators are being
trained to use the consensus process. Emotional phrases such as "food insecurity"
and "vulnerability information" evoke the public sympathy needed to change attitudes
and spur desired action.The WFS contract states, "To prevent and resolve
conflicts peacefully and create a stable political environment, through a transparent
and effective legal framework governments. will reinforce peace, by developing
conflict prevention mechanisms promoting tolerance. Develop policy making processes
that are democratic, transparent, participatory, empowering." (#14)"Promoting tolerance" is key to the paradigm
shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration
on Tolerance, signed by member states, defines tolerance as "respect, acceptance
and appreciation" of the world's diverse cultures and lifestyles-an attitude
that "involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." It is "not only a
moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." Since "intolerance
is a global threat," UNESCO demands an international "response to this global
challenge, including effective countermeasures."Why discuss tolerance, consensus building, compromise,
and conflict resolution at a UN summit on food? The answer is two-fold. First,
UN leaders warn us that intolerance causes conflict, which hinders food production
and causes poverty. Second, since intolerance implies resistance to the new
global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the implementation of the whole
UN plan. Therefore intolerance must be quenched, while "tolerance promotion
and the shaping of attitudes. should take place in schools and universities...
at home and in the workplace."14The solution, as you saw, is the consensus process,
also called conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, and the Delphi Technique.
To unify people who embrace opposing values, the public must be engaged in "participatory"
dialogues. Led by trained facilitators, these dialogues produce the collective
thinking which prods participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm
of imagination and evolving truths.The ground rules demand that everyone participate
and find "common ground." They forbid dissent and argument, no matter how unsound
the "scientific" evidence used to back the preplanned consensus. "Adversarial
processes" must be replaced with "collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts"
through "education, information and communications" until "people, bonded by
a shared purpose"15
learn to comply.It's already happening across America. Young
and old are being trained to blend their values, adapt their beliefs, think
as a group, and conform to the new standards. Like other nations, America
is following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose architects may sound
wise and compassionate, but are neither rational, factual, honest or tolerant.Population ControlNotice the paradoxes. The United Nations promises
human rights, but mandates social engineering. It promises peace, but creates
conflict. It touts science, but twists it into propaganda. And it pledges food
security, but limits land use. How, then, can it reconcile its vision of a global
welfare system with its green agenda, including the huge Biosphere reserves?The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) suggest
an answer: simply cut the world population by about 80%-or return to a feudal
lifestyle (no cars, planes, air conditioners ) Meeting the need for "scientific
and technical assessments" mandated in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,16
the GBA estimates that,

"...an 'agricultural world' in which most
human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people....
In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at
the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion
[people].17

For globalist leaders such as Undersecretary
of State Timothy Wirth, the process is too slow. "We hope the senate will...
ratify the Biological Diversity Treaty which is essential to all the issues,"
he told the above reporters, "[and to the] continuing emphasis on the increasing
need for population stabilizing ... " A crusader for Malthusian economics and
China's one-child family planning, Wirth has indicated that by protecting women
fleeing China's oppressive abortion policies, "we could potentially open ourselves
up to just about everybody in the world saying 'I don't want to plan my family,
therefore I deserve political asylum."18Wirth's views may sound too radical for consensus,
but that depends on whose voice is heard. UN leaders tells us that solving the
world's problems must involve the participation of all members of society, but
they demonstrate the opposite. They promise to include everyone -- global and
national leaders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), women, youth and "other
sectors of civil society"-- if they share their vision. But dissenters are left
out.Today's typical consensus process allows resisters
a moment to expose themselves, but it refuses to record their objections. So
does the new civil society. "Bella Abzug's NGO Forum will submit a document
supposedly representing 1,200 NGOs and millions of persons worldwide," observed
Eagle Forum leader Cathie Adams, "The supporters of that document claim to represent
the world's civil society. It's interesting, though, that conservative groups
like Eagle Forum have experienced tremendous harassment regarding accreditation
for the Rome event. Clearly, the 'new civil society' cannot accommodate traditional
family values. The radical feminists are extremists attempting to stifle any
conservative views."19So do the socialists behind the UN agenda. As
Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State "In our state, naturally,
there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes
of socialism." 20Exclusion and hostility have pursued Jews and
Christians throughout history. Biblical values simply don't fit a world that
has turns its back to God. "If you were of the world, the world would love its
own," Jesus told His friends. "Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose
you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted
Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."Moments later, Jesus encouraged His friends with
a promise:

"These things I have spoken to you, that
in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be
of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 15:19-21, 16:33) In a world
of confusion, conflict, and catastrophe, He alone offers the hope, strength,
and guidance that can bring victory over evil.